LAWYER ( NOT IN CURRENT PRACTICE - INDEPENDENCE TAKEN AWAY FOR NO PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT NOR UNSATISFACTORY CONDUCT)
Hobbies / Interests (Optional)
I am fighting my case since 2006 because the West Australian Regulator of the Legal Profession through a conspiracy with the Legal Profession Complaints Committee is taking away my lawyer independence with the connivance of the Judiciary of Western Australia. Gordon Turriff Q.C. the President of the Bar Association of British Columbia, Canada when he visited Perth in WA in September, 2009, he made factual findings that the independence of the BAR in Australia especially Western Australia is being suppressed by the Judiciary and the Regulator. Justice cannot be seen to be done if the Judges are not Independent. The same goes for the Independence of Lawyers. Why Lawyers are not independent in WA? They do not want honest lawyers to defend the rights of the ordinary people so as to facilitate the plundering and the pillaging of the common people of Western Australia. That is why the ordinary Australians are losing their homes to predators every year and this is a trend.
More About Me (Optional)
TO READ MORE ABOUT ME AND MY STORY, GOOGLE "NICHOLASNCHIN" FOR MY BLOGSPOT.
My corrections. Dr. Schoombee might not have been a legal practitioner but he indeed has credential and might be another field other than law.
The regulator then came back to me on the same issues and President Chaney says they can prosecute me again on those issues they already prosecuted me on deficiency of professional knowledge. They just simply re-persecute me and say the last time they forgot to talk about professional misconduct. The matter was heard on 11.10.2010 for three days and I am still waiting for the reserve judgement which has been extended for another 60 days. I hope they get it right this time.
Would like Matt and Janet Thomson try to question me on my Just Grounds.
Dr. Schoombe, I understand is a Vexatious Litigant case.
My case is simple and straightforward: When they first tried to restrain my independence, I fought back and Judge Eckert decided that it was simply a false allegations against fellow lawyers. So they say it is deficiency of professional knowledge. When I challenged again, President Steytler gave me consent judgment in CACV 43 of 2007 that wiped out Eckert's decision on 26.9.2007. But they still harp back on the same issues by President Chaney of SAT in VR107 of 2008. Since then, it was jurisdictional error all along as they never decided the four issues: 1) False allegations against David Taylor. 2) False allegations against Timothy Thies. 3) Psuedo Board of the regulator. 3) Refused to implement the consent judgement. From then on it was refusal to decide those four issues. Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. Prerogative Writs of Certiorari refused on ground that judge of same rank cannot go against a brother judge. No res judicata because issues are never decided. They refused to accept principle of rule of law. Incidentally, Dr. Schoombe might have been a legal practitioner and might not understand. But this is plain refusal to do justice.